Armed Madhouse
Greg Palast's new book Armed Madhouse is out today, and he's suggesting that people buy it immediately, not only for his own self-aggrandizement but as a political rebuff to obnoxious New England rich twit Ann Coulter, whose latest frothing-at-the-mouth effusions are also published today.
I think that this is quixotic, since people like Scaife are going to buy Coulter's book in bulk to run up her sales. But it's a worthy effort nonetheless.
Supposedly, Coulter's book was published on June 6, 2006 because it is "the Mark of the Beast." Don't believe that for a moment. Coulter published her book on June 6 to exact revenge for the fact that her side lost on D-Day.
Comments
Ha, Ha, Satan is not as evil as Coulter.
I bought the Palast book as an impulse buy walking to the bathroom in a Borders. It was displayed in the new books section and being that I had 1.5 hours to kill before I did a shutdown meeting on a campaign I bought it.
Here's the thing with Palast, he is a little full of himself, if you seem him on TV he come across as a conspiracy theorist, even though what he is saying is true, and he's goofy. He plays up the "this is not a conspiracy theory" thing.
The book cover sucks, I felt like I was buying a Jim Hightower or Michael Moore book.
As I walked out of the borders with my $5 coffee and his book I felt like a super liberal.
Posted by: P. Cooley | June 10, 2006 12:16 AM
Hey PC --
I don't much care that Palast is full of himself; his investigative journalism is informative and fact-based. He "comes off as a conspiracy theorist" because that's the box they will put you in, and it's hard to avoid no matter how smart you are about trying to counter that.
I've not read all of Palast's book yet, and don't know if I will any time soon, but the elections stuff is pretty sobering. I don't know if he's correct that Kerry would have carried Ohio if voter intent had actually been reflected, but he does demonstrate persuasively that Kerry would have won New Mexico. Not that that would have changed the election result, but it's true. And he does demonstrate that there was pervasive voter intimidation in Ohio ("caging," etc.) and flagrant attempts by Blackwell to suppress the vote, including in ways that clearly violated the Voting Rights Act. Maybe that's a "conspiracy theory," but it also happens to be true, and if it didn't account for the margin in 2004, it still has alarming implications for other races -- including local and state ones -- that are closer.
Ohio is not the only state where this is happening. And further, I'm not sure what we can do about it, apart from finding ways to win so decisively that we overcome the Republicans' "election theft margin." But in standard fashion, even the New York Times has caught on that something is up here.
Posted by: John Lacny | June 11, 2006 12:01 PM
I am writing a book and would like to contact John Lacny for permission to use some of his stuff.
st.johnj@cox.net
Posted by: John H. St.John | June 11, 2006 01:43 PM